Nur Hussein wrote:
> Though packaged in various flavours:
> 1. Software architecture is highly delicate stuff
> 2. Software architecture needs to be protected from being open-sourced
> 3. Software architecture as IP is the core value of our shares
> (Does government tenders require us to open-source ?)
>
> Maybe this is even right, I dunno.
>
>
> It isn't right.
I didn't think so, either. But I was willing to accept their point of
view as being their concern, and maybe even more.
I was angry at their resolve to hammer it to the audience instead of
entering into a discusion and listen to arguments.
The bad will was exposed by the contributor comparing the topic with the
twin-towers:
To construct a solid 88-storey building the architects had the liberty
to decide on the material. Now the government wanted to prescribe wood,
and that wouldn't be solid for more than a few storeys compared to the
traditional steel. So the government should not prescribe, but leave the
decision to the architects.
Something to that behalf. Surely, this has more than one logical flaw.
Firstly, if it can be made from wood, by someone else, the steel-boys
better buck up instead of asking for protection. Secondly, it was an
offence to implicitely compare the current direction (FOSS) with insolid
wood unsuitable to construct what is required.
Nobody ought to be entitled to get the tenders written to suit the
business interests of the bidder(s).
Uwe
---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message